Tag Archives: washington

Now available on CSPAN3 (online): Michael E. Newton talking about “Hamilton and Washington’s Wartime Relationship”

Alexander Hamilton scholar Michael Newton and Alexander Hamilton Awareness Society Founder Rand Scholet talked about George Washington and Alexander Hamilton’s wartime relationship. Hamilton joined the Continental Army in 1776 and was appointed Washington’s aide the following year. He would later serve as President Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury. Despite the differences in their temperaments and personalities, the two men forged a long military and political partnership.

Watch at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/314099-1

Michael E. Newton on CSPAN 3 this Sunday talking about “Hamilton and Washington’s Wartime Relationship”

Alexander Hamilton scholar Michael Newton and Alexander Hamilton Awareness Society Founder Rand Scholet talked about George Washington and Alexander Hamilton’s wartime relationship. Hamilton joined the Continental Army in 1776 and was appointed Washington’s aide the following year. He would later serve as President Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury. Despite the differences in their temperaments and personalities, the two men forged a long military and political partnership.

Sep 1, 2013 08:30 (C-SPAN 3)
Sep 1, 2013 19:30 (C-SPAN 3)
Sep 1, 2013 22:30 (C-SPAN 3)
Sep 7, 2013 15:30 (C-SPAN 3)
Sep 8, 2013 02:30 (C-SPAN 3)

Show will be available online as well (live and on demand) at:

Three classic quotes on perfection

“We are not to expect perfection in this world.” ~ George Washington

“Absolute perfection is almost never a feature of a system of laws.” ~ Alexis de Tocqueville

“I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect man.” ~ Alexander Hamilton

Obama’s Plan for Automatic Tax Increases (via Conservatives on Fire)

Must read information from Conservatives on Fire. We can’t let the neo-liberals continue their tax and spend policies.

Did you know that Obama had a plan to increase taxes automatically? I didn’t know about Obama’s plan. Apparently the MSM doesn’t know or doesn’t care. Worst of all, it would seem that our Republican’s in Washington are also unaware of Obama’s plan and that makes me FURIOUS! Yesterday I received an E-mail from my friend Pat Slattery of The Free Market Project. Here is how Pat’s message began: We’ve got the bastard now!  James Howe pointed Obama’s … Read More

via Conservatives on Fire

United States blamed for unrest in Yemen. What happened to hope and change?

One of the main attractions of Barack Obama was that he would restore our creditability around the world after George W. Bush lost it all. How is that working out?

Yemeni president says US and Israel behind unrest

Associated Press

SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Yemen’s embattled U.S.-backed president accused Washington on Tuesday of instigating protests against his regime, as hundreds of thousands marched in cities across Yemen in the largest rallies yet seeking the longtime ruler’s ouster.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s allegations, unprecedented in their harshness, signaled a growing rift with the United States that could hurt a joint campaign against the al-Qaida terror network in Yemen.

Stories continues…

To blame the United States for the protests is certainly to give our President too much credit. And to think that Obama would restore American likability around the world by making speeches was surely the height of naivety and hubris.

Is There a Fed in Your Kitchen?

By Marcia Sielaff

Have you been wondering why your dishes and glasses don’t look as clean as they once did? Wonder no more. There’s an environmentalist in your dishwasher.

While you were preoccupied with showers, toilets and light bulbs, the environmentalists were having their way with your state legislature.

The January 31 issue of The Weekly Standard explains it all started in Washington State. The short version is that the Spokane River was polluted largely due to phosphorous run-off from a variety of major sources (industrial and water treatment facilities to mention a few) and from phosphorous in the form of phosphates in dishwasher detergents. The idea was launched to ban dishwasher detergents containing phosphates which is what the Washington legislature did in 2006.

Then the environmentalist lobby went to work getting similar laws passed in other states, although no one knows for sure how much dishwasher detergent really contributed to the pollution problem. When phosphorous gets into fresh water it stimulates algae growth. When the algae die, oxygen needed by plants and fish is depleted.

Although not all states banned the sale of detergents containing phosphates for home dishwashers, enough did so that manufacturers quietly altered their detergent formulas. It just wasn’t feasible to make detergents with phosphates for some states but not others. Householders, unaware that detergents no longer contained phosphates to help soften water, prevent particles from adhering to dishes, or give dishes that sparkle extolled in commercials, assumed their dishwashers were to blame.

Even National Public Radio reported irate home owners’ complaints that, “…pots and pans were gray, … aluminum was starting to turn black, … glasses had fingerprints and lip prints …   and they were starting to get this powdery look to them.”

As is the case with light bulbs that require a hazmat team for safe disposal, this green dream also turned out to have unintended environmental consequences. As the Standard explains, “It was the phosphorus in detergents, after all, that allowed modern dishwashers to function well using smaller amounts of cooler water.”

If more people revert to hand washing dishes to get them clean, more water and more fossil fuel to heat it will be required. Some people put vinegar in an extra rinse, or run their dishwashers twice, using more water and electricity. So, you may ask, exactly what environmental gains have been achieved by the bans.

Well, you can ask, just don’t expect an answer. It turns out that the science behind banning dish detergent is a bit iffy. The Standard points to a 2003 Minnesota study showing only 1.9 percent of the phosphorous there was due to household dish detergents.

However, as Sean Hannity likes to say, “Let not your heart be troubled.” Paper plates and plastic glasses are (still) an option…as are landfills to put them in. Or, since restaurants are excluded from the ban, some people suggest buying dish detergent from restaurant supply houses. But lest the phosphate police come knocking, you didn’t read it here.

Marcia Sielaff writes for What Would the Founders Think.com.

Great leaders! Washington and Churchill had a rare trait: character.

I came across two quotes today, one in my casual reading and one in research for a book I hope to publish this summer. I will be using these quotes in a future book, which may be published in 2012 or 2013 if I write that book immediately after this one. But I’d like to share the quotes with you now:

From The American Revolution by Gordon Wood (page 84):

Washington’s ultimate success as the American commander in chief, however, never stemmed from his military abilities… Instead, it was his character and political talent and judgment that mattered most. His stoicism, dignity, and perseverance in the face of seemingly impossible odds came to symbolize the entire Revolutionary cause.

Washington always deferred to civilian leadership and never lost the support of the Congress.

He was always loyal to his fellow officers in the Continental Army and they to him; they trusted him, and with good reason.

Speaking about trust, famed historian Paul Johnson writes in Forbes Magazine:

I remember feeling this as a boy in 1940, when Britain was in danger of being drowned in the rapidly advancing tide of Nazi military success. We trusted Winston Churchill to save us, and he, in turn, trusted the British people to have the courage and endurance and the intelligence and strength to make salvation possible.

George Washington and Winston Churchill may be best remembered for winning their respective wars and their successful terms as leaders of their countries. But their successes in both the military and political arenas (both were also outstanding writers) because of their character. They could be trusted. They exercised good judgment. They exercised courage in both action and inaction if reason advised caution at the moment. They were thoughtful and honorable.

One marked difference between the two: Washington tried to avoid public office while Churchill actively sought fame and power. However, both gave themselves fully to the service of their countries when chosen to do so. And even as Churchill sought power, he never backed down from unpopular opinions (attacking Nazism in the 1930s and then Communism after World War II) even if it cost him politically.

A message to our public servants: whether you sought power (that’s 99% of you people) or were drafted into it, be honest, be truthful, and be honorable. Do the right thing, even when it is difficult. Especially when it is difficult. Follow the examples of Washington and Churchill.

A good sign. Republicans get religion on earmarks.

Byron York reports:

In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion.

The Senate is a different story. But even though some Republicans are still seeking earmarks, Democrats are by far the bigger spenders. The watchdog groups found that Democrats requested 15,133 earmarks for 2011, for a total of $54.9 billion, while Republicans requested 5,352 earmarks, for a total of $22 billion.

In the House, Democrats out-earmarked Republicans by a 50-to-1 margin. Democrats out-earmarked Republicans by a 5-to-2 margin in Senate.

With Republicans taking over the House in January, we could see earmarks disappear. At least that is my hope.

Yes, I know that earmarks are just a small portion of the wasteful government spending. I even heard one Democratic analyst say “Earmarks are a rounding error.” Only in Washington is $8,300,000,000 considered a rounding error.

More important is that earmarks are, in effect, a bribe to get Representatives and Senators to vote for a bill they otherwise would not have voted for. If a Congressperson likes a bill, he or she should vote for it on the merits and not for the earmarks. And if he or she dislikes the bill, vote against. Thus, earmarks are either a complete waste of money if they don’t affect how our Congressperson votes or is a form of bribery if it does effect them. Earmarks are wasteful or evil. Either way, we should get rid of them forever.

Jefferson: The Dispensable Founding Father

Thomas Jefferson gets more praise than he deserves. While I generally agree with his ideology, his importance to the country’s founding is overblown.

Jefferson is best known for writing the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s use of words is most impressive, possibly creating the greatest document in history. However, if a lesser hand had written the Declaration, the United States would still have been declaring its independence and history would largely be the same. Furthermore, Jefferson was merely expressing the sentiments that already existed across the colonies. [Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson Vol 12 408-409.]

After penning the Declaration, Jefferson acted as Governor of Virginia, where he fled from the invading British and his popularity declined. He also spent a number of year as Minister to France and was there during the Constitutional Convention and debate over whether to ratify the Constitution. He then became Secretary of State under George Washington, where he took the wrong side on many position. For example, he sided with the French even as that country descended into anarchy and tyranny.

Up until this time, Jefferson had only one accomplishment of national importance: the Declaration of Independence. He most certainly did less of import than Washington, Adams, Hamilton, or Franklin.

So why the reverence for Jefferson? Thomas Jefferson was the country’s first successful party politician. Hamilton had his Federalists, but he never made a true party out of it. It was just a loose collection of similar factions. In fact, Adams and Hamilton constantly disagreed and this caused the fall of the Federalists. On the other hand, Jefferson created a party system with him at the helm. Jefferson won the presidential election in 1800 and his Democratic-Republics owned the White House for the next 24 years. History is written by the victors and Jefferson’s party was victorious. Jefferson was lauded as a hero of the Revolution, though he didn’t fight and had only one major accomplishment, while Hamilton, who acted as Washington’s lieutenant, was a major author of the Constitution, and its staunchest defender in the Federalist Papers, became a villain.

I must add that I believe that Jefferson was a great President. This has also helped his popularity. However, his presidency occurred a quarter of a century after the Revolution began and 12 years after the country’s founding. In this respect, Jefferson may be considered great as some consider Andrew Jackson, but not in terms of the Founding alongside Washington, Franklin, Adams, and Hamilton, whose careers were all basically over when Jefferson became President.

I am interested to hear your thoughts on this interesting and perhaps controversial topic….